People v. Hastings
Decision Date | 20 August 1985 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 75030 |
Citation | 422 Mich. 267,373 N.W.2d 533 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas Charles HASTINGS, Defendant-Appellee. 422 Mich. 267, 373 N.W.2d 533 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Edward J. Grant, Pros. Atty., and Joseph A. Greenleaf, Chief Appellate Pros. Atty., Jackson, for the People.
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Mardi Crawford, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
In People v. Kyllonen, 402 Mich. 135, 262 N.W.2d 2 (1978), we held that the person who had stolen property could not be convicted of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of that property under the then-effective language of M.C.L. Sec. 750.535(1); M.S.A. Sec. 28.803(1). The issue in the instant case is whether the 1979 amendment of that statute, 1 which added possessing and concealing stolen property to the list of proscribed conduct, changes the Kyllonen rule. The Court of Appeals, 136 Mich.App. 380, 356 N.W.2d 645 (1984), concluded that it did not, and reversed the defendant's conviction. We disagree, and reverse the Court of Appeals judgment.
Defendant Hastings was charged under M.C.L. Sec. 750.535(1); M.S.A. Sec. 28.803(1) in connection with certain property stolen from a Jackson County home. The defendant agreed to plead guilty. At the plea proceeding, when he gave the factual basis, the defendant said that he and another person had entered the house in question and taken various items, including those which he was accused of stealing. He said that he was arrested while in the process of taking the items to a prospective purchaser. After sentencing, the defendant appealed, raising several issues.
At the time of People v. Kyllonen, the language of the statute prohibiting "receiving and concealing" stolen property provided:
M.C.L. Sec. 750.535; M.S.A. Sec. 28.803, 1974 P.A. 55. (Emphasis added.)
In People v. Kyllonen, supra, we studied the history of the statute in a case, like the instant one, in which the evidence indicated that the defendant was the one who had stolen the property. We concluded:
"Although legislative intent often is elusive, the thrust of the statutory wording is clear on its face and consistent with its historical development. It is directed towards those who assist the thief or others in the disposition or concealment of stolen property. The everyday understanding of the language employed excludes the person who committed the larceny.
"To interpret the words 'buys,' 'receives' or 'aids in the concealment' of stolen property to mean buying or receiving from one's self or aiding one's self in concealment is needlessly to corrupt a forthright and harmonious statute." 402 Mich. 145, 262 N.W.2d 2.
After our decision in Kyllonen, the Legislature amended the statute to include those who possess or conceal stolen property knowing it to be stolen. As amended by 1979 P.A. 11, the statute reads:
M.C.L. Sec. 750.535; M.S.A. Sec. 28.803. (Emphasis added.)
The defendant's appeal presented to the Court of Appeals the question of interpretation of the 1979 amendment. The Court divided on the question. The majority found that the amendment did not clearly signal an intention to change the rule of Kyllonen. It concluded:
People v. Hastings, 136 Mich.App. 380, 383, 356 N.W.2d 645 (1984).
"Based on the statute as worded prior to the 1979 amendment, the Supreme Court strictly construed the statute to exclude thieves who conceal property they have stolen. One year later, however, the Legislature amended the statute, thereby changing the wording relied on by the Supreme Court in Kyllonen and, in my opinion, invalidating the analysis in that case. Further, since criminal statutes are not lightly or frequently amended, we cannot ignore the proximity in time between Kyllonen and the amendment and assume that the Legislature meant nothing by adding the words 'possesses' and 'conceals.' The commentary cited in the majority opinion, 3 CJI, Ch 26 Commentary, Stolen Property, p 27, also supports this conclusion.
Hastings, supra, at pp. 385-386, 356 N.W.2d 645.
The prosecutor filed a motion for rehearing. It was denied, with Judge Gillis stating that he would have granted the motion.
We agree with Judge Gillis that the 1979 amendment removes the basis on which People v. Kyllonen concluded that the thief could not be prosecuted under the statute. Prosecution of the thief for possessing or concealing stolen property does not torture the language of the statute, as it would have to have so read the former prohibition on buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.
In addition, the legislative history of the amendment reveals that this was its purpose. The report of the House Legislative Analysis Section on SB 24, the bill which became 1979 P.A. 11, linked the "apparent problem" to this Court's decision in Kyllonen:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garcia v. State, 88-205
...no matter how related in time or activity to the earlier theft. See Sutton v. Com., 623 S.W.2d 879 (Ky.1981) and People v. Hastings, 422 Mich. 267, 373 N.W.2d 533 (1985). These statutes actually create an alternative but not a double offense exposure by creation of a possession offense. See......
-
Com. v. Corcoran
...324, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 851, 113 S.Ct. 152, 121 L.Ed.2d 102 (1992); People v. Hastings, 422 Mich. 267, 373 N.W.2d 533 (1985); State v. Carter, 293 Minn. 102, 196 N.W.2d 607 (1972); State v. Hargett, 157 N.C.App. 90, 577 S.E.2d 703 (2003); Maumee v......
-
Wilson v. Klee, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-11904
...that a person can be charged and convicted of both UDAA and receiving and concealing a motor vehicle. See People v. Hastings, 422 Mich. 267, 268, 373 N.W.2d 533 (1985) (overruling People v. Kyllonen, 402 Mich. 135, 262 N.W.2d 2 (1978), and ruling that a person who steals property can be con......
-
Marrs v. Board of Medicine
...Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974).7 M.C.L. Sec. 24.292; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(192).8 People v. Hastings, 422 Mich. 267, 373 N.W.2d 533 (1985) (Levin, J., concurring ).9 Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, M.C.L. Sec. 24.201 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(101) et seq.10 Model ......